Saturday, March 26, 2022

Hellfire Is Real

 One of the reasons modern Westerners are so degenerate is that nobody takes the doctrine of Hell seriously any more, not even the Christians, as this article demonstrates. In fact, modern fashionable Bible translations undermine this doctrine by using words like Sheol and Hades which simply don't carry the same connotation in Germanic languages. (Here is the proof that Sheol, Hades and Gehenna basically mean the same thing).

 And then, of course, modern Protestants nearly all believe in some perverted version of "once saved always saved" in which you basically can commit most sins without bringing your soul in danger. Because, if you seriously believe in hell fire, would you do things like live together unmarried and divorce on a whim? 

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

An interesting thing is that while many Christian preachers will readily judge a man who changes his wife for a younger version, they often will sympathise with a woman who divorces, which I believe has its roots in Victorian times. The laws of that period compelled wives to live together with their husbands and made divorce difficult, which many prominent Victorian men considered very wrong. Victorians gave us a very warped doctrine of female s*xuality in which all women were innocent doves, like Virgin Mary while evil men defiled them with their passions.

I remember reading about some prominent Victorian who said that he would allow every woman to divorce, but no man should ever be allowed to do it. Women were officially declared victims of their biology, since childbirth was still quite unsafe. Yet, before mid-19th century, most women usually  visited midwives, who being older women themselves had little sympathy, but later it became normal to see a doctor who were nearly all male and they decided that the normal process of birth was "torture" and no woman should go through it more than a couple of times at the most.

Husbands were supposed to "leave their wives alone" and separate bedrooms among upper classes became the norm rather than an exception. You can see it reflected in the literature of that period and early 20th century (I think everybody remembers Ashley and Melanie Wilkes, but also Kipling and Leo Tolstoy come to mind) while in previous times it was upper class women who had the most kids (Victoria herself had 9, I think, but had to quit on "doctor's orders").

It's interesting that while 20th century feminists shared the same attitude about pregnancy and children, they also insisted that women could do anything men could and even better and found chivalry insulting. Conservatives, on the other hand, created the double standards in which women were praised for being tough like men, but on the other hand, they had to be treated like the fine ladies they were. Enid Blyton with her famous Five comes to mind. 

Remember George? She is a delusional girl who insists on being treated like a boy and wears boy's clothes. In one of the books, she starts a fight with a boy her age but when he tries to hit her back Julian tells him he should be ashamed of hitting a girl. I mean seriously, WT*? Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

And even Clive S. Lewis whom conservatives like so much portrays Lucy going to war and obviously being admired for being just as good as a man, but, on the other hand, Eustace is a pig for not being chivalrous to her. 

The problem with conservatives is that they are always reactive, never proactive. Somebody said that the reason they all love "Lord Of The Rings" so much is because it shows wielding power as evil, and conservatives are always afraid to use power when they have a chance. That's why they keep losing. 

So because feminists denigrated homemaking conservatives started portraying it as more important than what the men do. Remember this quote?

“The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only - and that is to support the ultimate career. ”

C.S. Lewis 
It is actually a total reversal of what the Scriptures teach about the male and female roles. It makes the man a help-meet to his wife. His reason for existence is to support her and her children, not vice versa. Yet modern Christians often adopt exactly the same attitude. 
Some time ago I wrote a post about King Arthur and mentioned a certain blogger who had problems with modern interpretation of chivalry. Personally I believe that it all started somewhere in the end of the 19th century, in Victorian and Edwardian period, and we still have to deal with it. I also think that it's stupid to treat modern big mouthed females as little ladies they are. Take those horrible warmongering female journos. I'd send them all to the front lines. It all started with the white feather campaign, and men should have put an end to it right then and there.
Those who don't have to fight should have no say on starting a war. Women can't have it both ways, they are either ladies or equals. I know it makes it more complicated for modern men to decide how to treat women in their life, but I think we all know the difference. So act accordingly... 


  1. Good look at the history here. It's amazing how much cultural rot has worked its way into the church and remained as tacitly unquestioned dogma, despite either total lack of Biblical warrant, or often complete contradiction of clear Biblical doctrine.

    Nonsensical Victorian attitudes about sex helped pave the way for feminism, which swung the pendulum way over to the bizarre, disgusting, and degenerate. Yet the church clings to the "chivalry" that isn't found in the Bible. Women are made into idols.

    I recently learned of the direct connection of the temperance movement to the suffrage movement and first wave feminism. I had no idea they were inextricably linked. Hilariously, Southern US non-liturgical churches have happily adopted the practice of only using grape juice with communion, rather than wine. Point out that this is just a practice that ignores the Scriptures and acquiesces to a cornerstone of the founding of feminism, and watch the heads explode.

  2. Didn't Carrie Nation go into bars with an axe? In the defence of the temperance movement one could say that alcoholism was then a real problem and that the churches reacted to it. On the other hand, early feminists used it as an opportunity to invade male spaces like bars and saloons, and men didn't kick them out because they were "ladies". Those Victorians did suffer from cognitive dissonance, didn't they?

    1. It seems that a common thread is a tendency to overreact to any particular social ill, rather than take a measured response. You can see that with the present hysteria over LGBTetc normalization, which, for the T part in particular, uses the pretext of preventing suicide as the justification for completely upending even the most basic facts about human biology. And as you note, rather than tell these people to go pound sand, everyone tacitly acquiesces out of a sense of "politeness". All while the degenerates dress in drag and groom their children. It's monstrous.

  3. I think what progs do isn't based on the overreaction, it's premeditated. And the broad society could care less as long as they personally have their bread and circuses. Their principle is: "F*** you, I've got mine". People in general seem to have lost the capacity of righteous anger, and yes, the churches are to blame since all they do is to preach the cult of niceness. But, if they did otherwise, the government would probably close them...